tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post116959430447407105..comments2018-03-19T05:20:40.936-07:00Comments on Google Operating System: Google Image Search Has a Cleaner LookAlex Chituhttps://plus.google.com/115880905881518206826noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-69329869449258885002012-08-06T13:52:33.672-07:002012-08-06T13:52:33.672-07:00Me, too!!! I don&#39;t appreciate chnges w/o even...Me, too!!! I don&#39;t appreciate chnges w/o even ckg my preferences!<br />ANYWAY TO GET MY HUSKIES BACK?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-42696178631436390552011-01-27T13:57:12.836-08:002011-01-27T13:57:12.836-08:00I like the new google but i just want the old one ...I like the new google but i just want the old one backAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-62207590622984581252010-09-18T21:20:25.744-07:002010-09-18T21:20:25.744-07:00I hate this new feature! I want getting the old st...I hate this new feature! I want getting the old style back!Orionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-63159626233228260212007-02-21T01:57:00.000-08:002007-02-21T01:57:00.000-08:00I'd definitely agree with the crowd. The newer loo...I'd definitely agree with the crowd. The newer look was cleaner and delightful, and at the same time hindering ease of use and productivity. Some middle ground could be found, or else, as they have done revert.<BR/><BR/>I did appreciate the clean aesthetic though.Gautamahttp://www.gautama.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-44124247147969434902007-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:002007-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:00The debate over whether or not it is more function...The debate over whether or not it is more functional is not worth bothering with. It clearly is NOT. The only thing here left to individual opinion is whether or not you like it - clearly most don't. But then again, Google can't put a foot wrong with *some* people....even if they now have to mess around for longer, per image search. Google, just admit you can sometimes be stupid, put it back to how it was, and we won't hold it against you. In fact, we'll respect you all the more for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-33967288029601336412007-01-31T00:32:00.000-08:002007-01-31T00:32:00.000-08:00Absolutely cleaner, but A LOT more unuseful.
PLEA...Absolutely cleaner, but A LOT more unuseful.<br /><br />PLEASE, put an ON/OFF in the Preference section!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-59578571701769105492007-01-30T14:13:00.000-08:002007-01-30T14:13:00.000-08:00How about the Web Image Player at Web Image Playe...How about the Web Image Player at <a href="http://www.pgol.us"> Web Image Player(www.pgol.us) </a>. I think it uses Google Search Engine. It displays returned images one by one without user's clicking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-38510383913668243742007-01-28T08:21:00.000-08:002007-01-28T08:21:00.000-08:00Agree, step backward, Google should at least repla...Agree, step backward, Google should at least replace the filename, generally useless, with the pixel size, absolutely essential.<br /><br />Also, wouldn't hurt if Google display more images per page or took a further cue from Microsoft and had more thumbnails appear as you scroll down.donnachahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385163783890557418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-8993934782034504522007-01-26T15:27:00.000-08:002007-01-26T15:27:00.000-08:00I agree with the others - this is a step very much...I agree with the others - this is a step very much in the wrong direction. Google Images is first and foremost a _tool_. I need to see at a glance the url and the image size before determining how useful the link might be. What possible advantage could there be to anyone in making the page appear "cleaner"? It greatly decreases the usefulness of the search results. Please make this an option rather than making everyone jump through hoops in all of their browsers to get the previous behavior.James Dawesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169818430994777182007-01-26T05:33:00.000-08:002007-01-26T05:33:00.000-08:00Anonymous above already said it best:when I look f...Anonymous above already said it best:<BR/><BR/>when I look for images, I do not click on the "best image," I make judgments based on where the image is from, how many other images may be at that site, and how large the file is<BR/><BR/>I think we all want to have this become a preferences option:<BR/><BR/>1 - detailed list<BR/>2 - simple layout<BR/><BR/>What should the default be? I would go for detailed, of course...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169790366388111312007-01-25T21:46:00.000-08:002007-01-25T21:46:00.000-08:00A total step back in usability. What were you guy...A total step back in usability. What were you guys thinking??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169779656100309122007-01-25T18:47:00.000-08:002007-01-25T18:47:00.000-08:00Would be great if there was an ON/OFF option to ma...Would be great if there was an ON/OFF option to make all the users happpy :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169760280874354522007-01-25T13:24:00.000-08:002007-01-25T13:24:00.000-08:00The stripped-down results page is ok if I'm lookin...The stripped-down results page is ok if I'm looking for just images, but a lot of the time I'm using image search to find an illustrated guide to something, and the image alone is a poor indicator of whether the result is what I want. The text snippets are not very useful, I'd rather have the URL instead of the snippet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169747224775893842007-01-25T09:47:00.000-08:002007-01-25T09:47:00.000-08:00Also, this user style will put it back to normal w...Also, <A HREF="http://userstyles.org/style/show/1711" REL="nofollow">this user style</A> will put it back to normal without having to disable javascript.pile0nadeshttp://pile0nades.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169741986693933362007-01-25T08:19:00.000-08:002007-01-25T08:19:00.000-08:00The update also broke Google Image Relinker. I put...The update also broke Google Image Relinker. I put up a <A HREF="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/7230" REL="nofollow">fixed version</A> here.pile0nadeshttp://pile0nades.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169672098083255802007-01-24T12:54:00.000-08:002007-01-24T12:54:00.000-08:00Ugg, terrible update!I like to be able to see what...Ugg, terrible update!<BR/>I like to be able to see what website the image is on before I click...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169661742375207762007-01-24T10:02:00.000-08:002007-01-24T10:02:00.000-08:00Another vote against. I'm sure someone will Grease...Another vote against. I'm sure someone will Greasemonkey it back soon.Jon Williamshttp://wizardishungry.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169656965215786992007-01-24T08:42:00.000-08:002007-01-24T08:42:00.000-08:00This is an absolutely horrible update. It undenia...This is an <B>absolutely horrible</B> update. It undeniably reduces functionality and makes it harder to find images. Please go back to the old display style, this is against every Google philosophy as well as common sense. I can't believe this massive step backward was contemplated for one second, much less actually implemented. I expect much more from Google.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169656190634904132007-01-24T08:29:00.000-08:002007-01-24T08:29:00.000-08:00This is a terrible update. Often, I search for a ...This is a terrible update. Often, I search for a term and scan over the entire results page looking for the highest resolution images because so many <I>very</I> low-res results get returned. In fact, I've often wanted a function to sort the results of a search by image size (more than just small, medium, large).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169652835058036102007-01-24T07:33:00.000-08:002007-01-24T07:33:00.000-08:00If you use Opera 9 and you want to return to the o...If you use Opera 9 and you want to return to the old design:<BR/><BR/>- go to Google Images<BR/>- right-click and select "Edit site preferences"<BR/>- go to the Scripting tab <BR/>- uncheck "Enable JavaScript"<BR/>- click OK and refresh the page<BR/><BR/>To go back to the current design, do the same thing, but enable JavaScript. The idea is that you'll get the old design if you disable JavaScript and this small trick disables JavaScript only for images.google.com (or your local version).Ionut Alex. Chituhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169651830963601252007-01-24T07:17:00.000-08:002007-01-24T07:17:00.000-08:00This new design is absolutely less functional . . ...This new design is absolutely <B>less functional</B> . . . when I look for images, I do not click on the "best image," I make judgments based on where the image is from, how many other images may be at that site, and how large the file is. <BR/><BR/>Google really stepped on their collective dinks here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169650690427190632007-01-24T06:58:00.000-08:002007-01-24T06:58:00.000-08:00I don't know about results, but I think Windows Li...I don't know about results, but I think Windows Live Search has <A HREF="http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=london%20night&FORM=QBIR" REL="nofollow">the best interface</A> for image search. It may be slower, but you don't have to go to the next page (just scroll down), you can keep track of the good results in the scratchpad, thumbnail's size is adjustable on the spot and you have the search results in the sidebar even if you click on one result, so you don't have to go back.Ionut Alex. Chituhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169650205341295342007-01-24T06:50:00.000-08:002007-01-24T06:50:00.000-08:00There is style and functionality. It takes alot of...There is style and functionality. It takes alot of work to get them both together.<BR/><BR/>I normally look at the url text to check the validity of the image. If, for example, I saw a picture of the iPhone before it was announced and was located at apple.com then I would know its the real thing, or if it was located at joke.com then I would know its a fake picture.<BR/><BR/>Removing the option to see the url instantly makes skim reading the results page like trying to skim read a book while its closed - it makes it very hard. <BR/><BR/>10/10 on style, although same cant be said for functionality.<BR/><BR/>People love/loved Google due to its simplicity, not its style. At the end of the day they want results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169647679212774692007-01-24T06:07:00.000-08:002007-01-24T06:07:00.000-08:00I agree with Nathan Zeldes, while it does look cle...I agree with Nathan Zeldes, while it does look cleaner it's less functional.<BR/><BR/>I would say that the Title which is the only text displayed until you hover is useless 90% of the time, perhaps it carries some weight for matching search terms but i find that it rarely, if ever, helps me find the correct image.<BR/><BR/>Something much more usefull would be to show only the image size until you hover.mognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-1169644215418164862007-01-24T05:10:00.000-08:002007-01-24T05:10:00.000-08:00I hate it,i want to know when i search for images ...I hate it,i want to know when i search for images the dimensions of them.Its stupid to hover one by one to find what you want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com